Is only the Roman Spirituality the "Teaching" of the Church?

[Gregory_I]

Often you will hear what the Teaching of the Catholic church is on a particular topic in the context of the General Roman Synods.

But we Eastern Catholics can speak of Say Hesychastic Traditions and are encouraged to practice them within the Context of say the Palamite controversies and the writings of St. Symeon the new Theologian:

So, does the Catholic church teach Hesychasm?

Or we can talk about the view the east takes of hades and theosis and not enjoying full blessedness or full torment until the last day, and we have the right to hold to this view.

Does the Catholic church teach this view then?

Or is the Magisterial teaching of the Catholic church exclusively Roman with Roman definitions within a Roman spirituality?

If so, why? If we are allowed to hold our views and spiritualities, does the Church not hold them? Or are the eastern theologies merely tolerated and not really a part of the Catholic church?

 

[Vico]

Often you will hear what the Teaching of the Catholic church is on a particular topic in the context of the General Roman Synods.

But we Eastern Catholics can speak of Say Hesychastic Traditions and are encouraged to practice them within the Context of say the Palamite controversies and the writings of St. Symeon the new Theologian:

So, does the Catholic church teach Hesychasm?

Or we can talk about the view the east takes of hades and theosis and not enjoying full blessedness or full torment until the last day, and we have the right to hold to this view.

Does the Catholic church teach this view then?

Or is the Magisterial teaching of the Catholic church exclusively Roman with Roman definitions within a Roman spirituality?

If so, why? If we are allowed to hold our views and spiritualities, does the Church not hold them? Or are the eastern theologies merely tolerated and not really a part of the Catholic church?

Each Church sui iuris can have a different theology and discipline than the Latin Church, but accepts the same dogmas. For example indulgences are not in the tradition of many Eastern Catholic Churches, yet they are available to those in them. There are some teachings apply to the Universal Church not the particular Church (sui iuris). There are many beliefs held by the faithful that are personal and are not contrary to dogma, that are not required beliefs and are acceptable.

Surely any Catholic can justly “pray without ceasing” acquiring an inner stillness and ignoring the physical senses, with heart and mind focused. I see this type of prayer in the Latin Church practice of Eucharistic Adoration, not only the Jesus Prayer.

On Theosis, the Catechism of the Catholic Church has many sections that refer to the divine sonship and divinization of man and our partaking of his Divine nature. (see 257, 260, 265, 398, 460, 1265, 1812, 1988, 1999). One such:

**460 **The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81

 

[Monica4316]

Is it true that all Roman Catholic dogmas must be believed by Eastern Catholics? I don’t mean Roman Catholic theology, but the dogmas that have been officially defined. (for example, Infallibility of the Pope).

 

[Vico]

Is it true that all Roman Catholic dogmas must be believed by Eastern Catholics? I don’t mean Roman Catholic theology, but the dogmas that have been officially defined. (for example, Infallibility of the Pope).

The Catholic Church is united in hierarchy, mysteries (sacraments), and faith, not the particular discipline or liturgy or theology (e.g., St. Thomas). The faith requires certain beliefs which are the dogmas of faith of which Lumen Gentium from Vatican II is a good recent summary.

 

[Gregory_I]

Yes, yes, lovely phraseology and semantic gymnastics:

Does the Catholic Church teach Hesychasm?

Does the Catholic church Teach that those who die in the Lord experience blessedness, yet they will be even more blessed in the ressurection, and that the sinners suffer punishment after death, yet even greater punishment after the ressurection?

Does the Catholic church teach the Distinctions between essence and energies?

Because Eastern Catholics do teach and hold these beliefs, and yet the Roman Catholic church has consistently opposed them, but now we are allowed to believe them, so does the church teach them or not?

 

[dcointin]

I don’t see how an Eastern Catholic could accept a practice like indulgences when its completely based on Roman theological presuppositions

 

[Vico]

I don’t see how an Eastern Catholic could accept a practice like indulgences when its completely based on Roman theological presuppositions

You can read on the Melkite site that indulgences are accepted, in fact the Eastern Catholic bishops have issued them. Read W-4 here:
melkite.org/bishopQA.htm

Indulgences are based upon two things:

1. Penance: the power to remit or retain sin. (John 20:22-23, Matt. 18:18)
2. The efficacy of prayer for those asleep in Christ.

It is not required to believe any specific theories regarding indulgences as those are not dogmas of faith.

 

[dcointin]

You can read on the Melkite site that indulgences are accepted, in fact the Eastern Catholic bishops have issued them. Read W-4 here:
melkite.org/bishopQA.htm

Indulgences are based upon two things:

1. Penance: the power to remit or retain sin. (John 20:22-23, Matt. 18:18)
2. The efficacy of prayer for those asleep in Christ.

It is not required to believe any specific theories regarding indulgences as those are not dogmas of faith.

I personally didn’t find his answer persuasive. He writes: “The notion of an indulgence that removes the temporal punishment due to sin is deeply rooted in the theological consciousness of both East and West” [bold mine]. He cites as evidence the prayers that accompany the sacrament of Unction during Holy Week, and prayers for the cleansing of the departed. These prayers however have nothing to do with the “temporal punishment” due because of sin, but about the forgiveness of sin and cleansing from its corruption to be united with God, i.e. theosis. The CCC describes indulgences as follows:

“An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the **treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints **to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins” [bold mine]

This notion of a treasury of merit and temporal punishments due to sin are foreign to Orthodoxy. While sin can cause temporal consequences, such as a civil penalty due to committing a crime, and these are used by God as a loving discipline, there is no teaching in Orthodoxy that God imposes external punishments. Further, there is no teaching of a “treasury of merits”, as though the saints accumulated good works like money that can be dispensed for the good of another. The only works by which we are judged are those of Christ and our own. God may bless us due to the prayers of a righteous person, but that is the furthest that the merits of another person would affect us.

I admire the attempt of Eastern Catholics to be authentically Orthodox and also in communion with Rome, but it seems obvious that some beliefs that they are being asked to hold are simply not a part of their tradition.

 

[Vico]

Yes, yes, lovely phraseology and semantic gymnastics:

Does the Catholic Church teach Hesychasm?

Does the Catholic church Teach that those who die in the Lord experience blessedness, yet they will be even more blessed in the ressurection, and that the sinners suffer punishment after death, yet even greater punishment after the ressurection?

Does the Catholic church teach the Distinctions between essence and energies?

Because Eastern Catholics do teach and hold these beliefs, and yet the Roman Catholic church has consistently opposed them, but now we are allowed to believe them, so does the church teach them or not?

This is some kind of test.

Hesychasm:the quietistic practices of a 14th-century ascetic sect of mystics drawn from the monks of Mt. Athos.

The Catholic Church includes all the Churches sui iuris, so yes, the Catholic Church teaches Hesychasm.

I practice devotional mental Jesus Prayer in sync with the breathing. I learned this technique from my Byzantine Catholic Church.

The Divine simplicity and the distinction between the Divine Essence and the Divine Energies is contradictory if Divine Essence is defined as what God* eternally is.* This is because God has no unrealized potentialities in His simplicity*. *If Divine Essence is defined as what God is apart from what He does, then there is no conflict. As long as one is not in conflict with dogma of faith there is not a problem with essence and energies distinction, but that does not mean that every Church sui iuris will teach Hesychasm or distinction between the Divine Essence and the Divine Energies.

Essence: God apart from what He does.
Energies: God in what He does.

Does the Catholic church Teach that?:

1. those who die in the Lord experience blessedness
2. they will be even more (continue to be) blessed in the resurrection
3. sinners suffer punishment (separation from God) after death
4. greater (eternal) punishment (separation from God) after the resurrection

Lumen Gentium (The Sacred Constitution on the Church), the Council states:
Until the Lord shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him (cf. Mt 25:31) and death being destroyed, all things are subject to him (cf. 1Cor 15:26-27), some of his disciples are exiles on earth, some having died are purified, and others are in glory beholding 'clearly God himself triune and one, as he is"; but all in various ways and degrees are in communion in the same charity of God and neighbor and all sing the same hymn of glory to our God (LG 49).

For before we reign with Christ in glory, all of us will be made manifest “before the tribunal of Christ, so that each one may receive what he has won through the body, according to his works, whether good or evil”(260) and at the end of the world “they who have done good shall come forth unto resurrection of life; but those who have done evil unto resurrection of judgment”.(261) (LG 48)
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

There is after death, purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. See CCC 1030-1032.

Those who die in serious sin, willfully and persistently turning away from God, suffer chiefly from eternal separation from God. See CCC 1033-1037.

 

[Vico]

I personally didn’t find his answer persuasive. He writes: “The notion of an indulgence that removes the temporal punishment due to sin is deeply rooted in the theological consciousness of both East and West” [bold mine]. He cites as evidence the prayers that accompany the sacrament of Unction during Holy Week, and prayers for the cleansing of the departed. These prayers however have nothing to do with the “temporal punishment” due because of sin, but about the forgiveness of sin and cleansing from its corruption to be united with God, i.e. theosis. The CCC describes indulgences as follows:

“An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the **treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints **to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins” [bold mine]

This notion of a treasury of merit and temporal punishments due to sin are foreign to Orthodoxy. While sin can cause temporal consequences, such as a civil penalty due to committing a crime, and these are used by God as a loving discipline, there is no teaching in Orthodoxy that God imposes external punishments. Further, there is no teaching of a “treasury of merits”, as though the saints accumulated good works like money that can be dispensed for the good of another. The only works by which we are judged are those of Christ and our own. God may bless us due to the prayers of a righteous person, but that is the furthest that the merits of another person would affect us.

I admire the attempt of Eastern Catholics to be authentically Orthodox and also in communion with Rome, but it seems obvious that some beliefs that they are being asked to hold are simply not a part of their tradition.

Here is a thead I started on how indulgences relate to the Eastern tradition, Feb 2010.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=424801&highlight=indulgence

The phrases “treasury of merits” and “temporal punishments” have definitions that are not foreign to Orthodoxy, yet it is not necessary for a Catholic to believe specifically in the “treasury of merit”, rather the dogmas of faith related to indulgences are:

The Church possesses the power to grant Indulgences.
The use of Indulgences is useful and salutary to the faithful.

H.H. Blessed Pope John Paul II addressed this issue of punishment in 1999:
vatican.va/holy_father/jo…091999_en.html

“… I am referring to the gift of indulgences … It is a sensitive subject, which has suffered historical misunderstandings that have had a negative impact on communion between Christians. In the present ecumenical context, the Church is aware of the need for this ancient practice to be properly understood and accepted as a significant expression of God’s mercy. Experience shows, in fact, that indulgences are sometimes received with superficial attitudes that ultimately frustrate God’s gift and cast a shadow on the very truths and values taught by the Church.”

"In this context temporal punishment expresses the condition of suffering of those who, although reconciled with God, are still marked by those “remains” of sin which do not leave them totally open to grace. Precisely for the sake of complete healing, the sinner is called to undertake a journey of conversion towards the fullness of love.

In this process God’s mercy comes to his aid in special ways. The temporal punishment itself serves as “medicine” to the extent that the person allows it to challenge him to undertake his own profound conversion. This is the meaning of the “satisfaction” required in the sacrament of Penance."

Indulgentiarum Doctrina (1967):
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19670101_indulgentiarum-doctrina_en.html

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I personally didn’t find his answer persuasive. He writes: “The notion of an indulgence that removes the temporal punishment due to sin is deeply rooted in the theological consciousness of both East and West” [bold mine]. He cites as evidence the prayers that accompany the sacrament of Unction during Holy Week, and prayers for the cleansing of the departed. These prayers however have nothing to do with the “temporal punishment” due because of sin, but about the forgiveness of sin and cleansing from its corruption to be united with God, i.e. theosis. The CCC describes indulgences as follows:

“An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the **treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints **to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins” [bold mine]

This notion of a treasury of merit and temporal punishments due to sin are foreign to Orthodoxy. While sin can cause temporal consequences, such as a civil penalty due to committing a crime, and these are used by God as a loving discipline, there is no teaching in Orthodoxy that God imposes external punishments. Further, there is no teaching of a “treasury of merits”, as though the saints accumulated good works like money that can be dispensed for the good of another. The only works by which we are judged are those of Christ and our own. God may bless us due to the prayers of a righteous person, but that is the furthest that the merits of another person would affect us.

I admire the attempt of Eastern Catholics to be authentically Orthodox and also in communion with Rome, but it seems obvious that some beliefs that they are being asked to hold are simply not a part of their tradition.

Hello dcointin:wave:

You may be happy to note that there is a strong and growing movement among Eastern Catholics that rejects the imposition of beliefs that are contrary to our Byzantine tradition. In fact from what I’ve read it’s always been understood that Eastern Catholics would maintain the fullness of their own particular traditions (not just liturgical, but also theological, spiritual and disciplinary) without additions that are foreign to those traditions (cf. Union of Brest as well as the Statement of the Melkite Greek Catholic Synod Kyr Elias Zoghby’s “Confession of Faith”).

That being said, however, it’s good to realize that there are more Eastern traditions out there than just the Byzantine. One particular poster on this thread, mardukm, often notes that authentic Coptic theology is actually more similar, in many ways, to Roman theology than it is to Byzantine. Maybe when he gets back he will be able to comment on this. It could be said that while Eastern/Byzantine Catholics to reject “dogmas” that do not fit into our authentic traditional theological framework, we also reject the misconception and misunderstanding that frequently goes on between Roman Catholicism and Eastern (read "Byzantine) Orthodoxy. An example of this misunderstanding would be Original Sin. Every Orthodox I’ve ever heard speak of the difference between Original Sin and Ancestral Sin has always quoted Augustine’s notion of “inherited guilt” - as though we can be held accountable for the sins of Adam and Eve. This Augustinian notion, however, has been rejected by Rome in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I don’t remember the section, but just look at the Index and you’ll find the paragraph reference numbers.

I am curious to see any comments on your remarks on indulgences. I’ve struggled with the idea of indulgences for some time.

 

[Cristiano]

Yes, yes, lovely phraseology and semantic gymnastics:

Does the Catholic Church teach Hesychasm?

Does the Catholic church Teach that those who die in the Lord experience blessedness, yet they will be even more blessed in the ressurection, and that the sinners suffer punishment after death, yet even greater punishment after the ressurection?

Does the Catholic church teach the Distinctions between essence and energies?

Because Eastern Catholics do teach and hold these beliefs, and yet the Roman Catholic church has consistently opposed them, but now we are allowed to believe them, so does the church teach them or not?

This is my own opinion, and I never heard a Church pronouncement against Hesychasm. Humans have body and soul. Once they die they immediately go through the Particular Judgment and their souls will start experiencing torment or blessings. However, I seriously doubt that there will be a corporal experience of hell or heaven until the body is resurrected and we got through Final Judgment. One thing that we must be aware is that once we die we start to deal with eternity and that transcends our concept of kronos and so those experiences will not be fully captured with our thinking.

 

[awatkins69]

There was an interesting thread about hesychasm and how it is part of the Church patrimony here. Ghosty’s reply is great:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=451117&highlight=hesychasm

 

[scottm]

I admire the attempt of Eastern Catholics to be authentically Orthodox and also in communion with Rome, but it seems obvious that some beliefs that they are being asked to hold are simply not a part of their tradition.

Asked to hold? Hmmm. I rather see it as tolerating views not found in Orthodoxy. This Roman indulgence idea, for example, is irrelevant to Orthodoxy. Irrelevant doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It means that it makes no difference to Orthodoxy – so we can put up with it.

 

[Vico]

Asked to hold? Hmmm. I rather see it as tolerating views not found in Orthodoxy. This Roman indulgence idea, for example, is irrelevant to Orthodoxy. Irrelevant doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It means that it makes no difference to Orthodoxy – so we can put up with it.

No Catholic is required to utilize indulgences, but there are dogmas from the Council of Trent XXV session, that apply:

“Whereas the power of conferring Indulgences was granted by Christ to the Church; and she has, even in the most ancient times, used the said power, delivered unto her of God; the sacred holy Synod teaches, and enjoins, that the use of Indulgences, for the Christian people most salutary, and approved of by the authority of sacred Councils, is to be retained in the Church; and It condemns with anathema those who either assert, that they are useless; or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them.”

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct25.html

Interestingly, indulgences were not mentioned in the Union of Brest, but the dogma of purgatory was:

“5. We shall not debate about purgatory, but we entrust ourselves to the teaching of the Holy Church.”

From the Council of Trent XXV session, on Purgatory:

“Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, from the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught, in sacred councils, and very recently in this oecumenical Synod, that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar; the holy Synod enjoins on bishops that they diligently endeavour that the sound doctrine concerning Purgatory, transmitted by the holy Fathers and sacred councils,** be believed, maintained, taught, and every where proclaimed by the faithful of Christ**. But let the more difficult and subtle questions, and which tend not to edification, and from which for the most part there is no increase of piety, be excluded from popular discourses before the uneducated multitude.”

So that is why I believe that a doctrinal statement should be written by each Church defining purgatory in their terminology.

 

[ciero]

Asked to hold? Hmmm. I rather see it as tolerating views not found in Orthodoxy. This Roman indulgence idea, for example, is irrelevant to Orthodoxy. Irrelevant doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It means that it makes no difference to Orthodoxy – so we can put up with it.

Then why did the Patriarchs of Jerusalem and Antioch (Greek Orthodox) start issuing indulgences in the 16th cent?

 

[Vico]

Then why did the Patriarchs of Jerusalem and Antioch (Greek Orthodox) start issuing indulgences in the 16th cent?

Keep in mind that the Orthodox absolution certificates were outlawed by the Orthodox later, and that they were not the same as the Catholic indulgences.

 

[scottm]

Then why did the Patriarchs of Jerusalem and Antioch (Greek Orthodox) start issuing indulgences in the 16th cent?

You’ll have to point me to something on that, because (a) I’ve never heard of it, and (b) on its face it is contrary to the larger spirit of Orthodoxy.

 

[scottm]

So that is why I believe that a doctrinal statement should be written by each Church defining purgatory in their terminology.

Indeed. EO definitely believe in purgatory. For example, Russian Orthod churches (which is the tradition of my Eastern Cath church) have a special liturgy once a month for those whose anniversary of “falling asleep in the Lord” (aka, dying) falls in that month. In that liturgy we pray for the souls of those people, and this because somehow, in some way that nobody can explain, our prayers help them.

 

[trophybearer]

Indeed. EO definitely believe in purgatory. For example, Russian Orthod churches (which is the tradition of my Eastern Cath church) have a special liturgy once a month for those whose anniversary of “falling asleep in the Lord” (aka, dying) falls in that month. In that liturgy we pray for the souls of those people, and this because somehow, in some way that nobody can explain, our prayers help them.